[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YGM5ZJlK1V7ex9xR@blackbook>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 16:44:52 +0200
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin Sebor <msebor@....gnu.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Ning Sun <ning.sun@...el.com>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Simon Kelley <simon@...kelleys.org.uk>,
James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
Anders Larsen <al@...rsen.net>,
Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
tboot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Intel Graphics <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
ath11k@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, Odin Ugedal <odin@...d.al>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] cgroup: fix -Wzero-length-bounds warnings
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:00:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote:
> Would it be possible to enclose most or all of kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> in an #ifdef CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT block?
Even without any controllers, there can still be named hierarchies (v1)
or the default hierarchy (v2) (for instance) for process tracking
purposes. So only parts of kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c could be ifdef'd.
Beware that CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT is not known at preprocessing stage (you
could have a macro alternative though).
> I didn't try that myself, but this might be a way to guarantee that
> there cannot be any callers (it would cause a link error).
Such a guarantee would be nicer, I agree. I tried a bit but anandoned it
when I saw macros proliferate (which I found less readable than your
current variant). But YMMV.
Michal
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists